Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Statement Analysis Transcript: Davey Blackburn

I: Pastor Blackburn, thank you for joining us this morning, we’re so sorry for your loss.

DB: Thank you George, thank you very much.

I: I know the community came together in a memorial service for Amanda over the weekend, what do you want the world to know now about your wife?

DB: Oh my gosh, I wish I could tell the world everything about her, I wish I had the time to but, um, I think what I would really want the world to know is that she loved Jesus with her whole heart. And she loved people, and she spent her life pouring her life out to people. She served people, she uh, loved the people that were unloveable, gave hope to people who um, didn’t have hope, didn’t think they had a future, and um, she just absolutely gave everything she had to her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


"Oh my gosh" is to begin with exclamation.  Please see analysis on Scott Peterson, husband of murdered Lacy and Conor Peterson as he was not only indicated for deception, but later convicted and his statement is useful in domestic homicide language patterns.  

What is his time limitation from talking about Amanda?

This is his priority, that is, what came first.  He wants the world to know, in order:

a.  I don't have the time tell tell the world everything about her
b.  She loved Jesus with her whole heart. 
c  She loved people
d.  She spent her life for people
e.  She served people 
f.  She loved people
g.  She gave hope to people
h.  She gave everything to her Lord. 

Absent from the husband's statement is love to him, or love to her children.  This statement is from a husband of a woman with whom he lived and was "one" with, yet there is in this declaration of telling the world, nothing about their marriage.  

When someone's life is disrupted in this violent, life changing way, the world often "stops" and "nothing else matters."  This theme shows up in language.  There is nothing else that matters, and time stands still, and there is no 'moving forward' so close to the murder.  This statement appears to be hyperbole. 

He wishes he has the time. This statement should be taken in correlation to his original statement to the church:  he was not having the murder derail his career but only taking a few days off.  This comes at a time when he should have been 'reeling' from the 'blow' and without bearing.  Any normal grieving words were expected, but unheard; instead, his focus was upon himself, in particular, his career and how her death could benefit his career through publicity for his company/church.  The word "company" is intended to cause the reader to see what he did as something he was driven to success with.  I take this language from Blackburn, himself, who mentioned starting the work with "$100,000 of start up cash" and his wife's complaint that he was always at "work" beginning right after the honeymoon, which, from her perspective, led to the bad marriage.  From his perspective, it was not "work" that made the marriage bad, but pregnancy and his wife's inability or unwillingness to meet his sexual needs.  This, too, was her fault because he "articulated" his need, as he condemned other men for blaming their wives when they had not, in fact, "articulated" the need, leaving the wife to "guess" what was wrong.  




In this lengthy list, the subject is telling us of his wife's dedication which was to everyone but the subject, himself.  The list is long and it is void not only of the subject, but the child as well.  



DB: We know the police in,  have released surveillance photos, some surveillance videos overnight, what else have been telling you about who might have done this and why?

The question is about motive and identifying the killer.  
Although worded incorrectly, it is a good question. We avoid compound questions as they allow the subject to pick and choose what to answer and what not to.  

The questions, therefore are:

Who did this?
Why did he do this?

Keep this in mind as the subject responds:  

CD: Um, ya know, the ah investigators um, haven’t given me ah, a, ton of details that um, they’ve given me the details that they’ve released to, to the public as well, an, an so we, we’ve been really tryin’ to do over the past week is um, is, is, kinda figure out , we, ya know, how to grieve the loss an, an how to, how to move forward from here an how to work thru all of this , it’s devastating to the family an , and um, ya know the fu, funeral this past Sunday was just an amazing celebration of, of her life an, we just um, we were so grateful for, for friends and family comin’ to show support, and the nation um, there were over 6500 people tuned in across the world um, and, and, what was so great about Amanda is she was so selfless, that she didn’t want here life to be put on display ever, but she wanted Jesus to be put on display. We feel like that’s what happened at the celebration service, that Jesus was lifted up and people’s lives have been changed because of that.

a.  "Me" here is strong and appropriate.  He reveals, first, that police are not giving him anything the public does not have. 
This is to reveal that police have withheld information from him. He uses "a ton of details" which is consistent with his methodology of communication through 'word pictures'.  Consider a "ton" is a lot of information.  People are not comfortable lying outright.  More than 90% of deception comes from withheld or suppressed information rather than outright lying.  To use "a ton" is to give a word picture of a great deal of information though it is offered in the negative.  Next, he tells us exactly what they did give him:  the details "to me" that they have given to the press.  This is to emphasize "me", which is not his norm here.  

Why?

He leaves the listener with a clever word picture and impression:  police are giving "him", "himself" information, therefore, 'don't suspect me.'

This was a common theme of Billie Jean Dunn who sought to persuade television audiences that police were in close contact with her, which reduces suspicion.  It was her need to persuade that told us the opposite:  they were not communicating with her anything other than what the press received.  

b.  Note the change to "we" in "trying to figure out" the motive.  This is to avoid the motive of robbery and to include others with the plural pronoun "we", which is repeated often. 

The use of "we" is often found in guilty statements, just as it is in the language of children:  when we are guilty, we attempt to 'hide' among a crowd.   "Mom, everyone was doing it!" as if a multitude will justify action.  This is not a conclusion of guilt, but it is a red flag.  It was heard in the language of other homicide investigations regarding families, including missing children cases, Baby Lisa and Isabel Celis.  The deceptive parents had the need, even when alone, to use the pronouns "we" and "us" in personal matters where "I" and "my" were expected.  

He, himself, is not trying to figure out the motive.  "We" may be, but he, himself, is not.  Next, he takes this to something that is distinctly personal:  

c.  Grieving. 

"We" have to figure out how to grieve; not "I" which is not expected under any circumstances.  

"We" did not lose a wife.  "We" did not lose a child.  The marriage is between him and Amanda; no one else; and they were "one flesh", as one 'person.'  There is no more of an "personal" intrusion into this than murder.  

Investigators must learn why he, himself, does not have to "figure out" how to grieve.  

This is an artificial statement.  There is no "figuring out" to grieving; one grieves.  It may appear different in people, but it is a human reaction.  

"Jesus wept."

Lazaraus was a personal friend of Christ's, and this short statement speaks to perfect humanity for the subject, as is his claim.  

In his second public statement "to the nation" he invited people to his company, to "laugh" and instructed them to "wear jeans" and even told them what to tell media should they ask questions. 

 This is the language of a CEO , protecting and promoting his product, rather than a grieving, lost bewildered and frightened husband and father.  

Note:  "grieve the loss" is "the" loss and not "my wife" or anything personal.  

d.  "we" have to "move on" though she has been dead for just over a week.  This is not expected.  

e.  "Devastation."  There is nothing more devastating to a husband and father than to have his wife and child (pre born) murdered.  As "one flesh", it is, as described by many, as if "part of me was murdered" and other such close proximity language. It is an utter devastation to the surviving spouse first, and then to the children.  

To whom does he assign "devastation" to?

Here, it is "devastating" to "the family", not him, personally, nor even to "my family. " 

 This is unexpected distancing language.  

It is the language of a counselor or minister, removed from any personal connection to the victim.  

If a counselor, for example, is working with a family in grief, he or she would say "the family" as professional distance and boundary.  

This is to distance himself, personally, from the devastation.  

The expected is that he, himself, is devastated.  

In Statement Analysis we have a rule:

If the subject is unwilling or unable to say it, we are not permitted to say it for him.  

f.  Career. 

His original statement was narcissistic like and focused upon his career. His next statement was to the "nation" and it was a plea for his career success:  bringing people out.  

He used the death of Amanda as an advertisement of his business or company to the nation.  

What has our research and development department concluded?

Here, while speaking of the motive and identity of the murderer, he changes language to give the number of his successful advertising campaign technique of of "celebration" and "laughing" to a conclusion:

"6500"

He goes further, however, to include not only the number of people who attended, but those who accessed the web site. 

This is in response to Who killed your wife?  and Why did he kill her?

His answer is to measure the success of the slick, up beat and positive spin on the murder of Amanda.  

This is his priority found in his language.  

g.  He was asked:  What was so great about Amanda? 

 His answer is to reflect his priority and the success he has had, as well as to highlight the struggle it took to reach this national level. 

His answer is that she did not want to compete with him.  This is especially noteworthy in the video performance of "Q & A" where he he over-talks her, quiets her, finishes her sentences, interrupts her, and corrects her. 

He humiliates her and reveals his sex drive and her subsequent 'inadequacy' and lack of 'adventurous' spirt in sex, including an off color joke at her expense in which he said it "went right over her head', making her the comedic 'dunce' in a well worn pattern of duo performances where one is the smart one and the other the target.  Hope and Crosby, Laurel and Hardy, and on through the decades.  Even 'good natured' jokes at the other's expense often employ harsh language.  They both described this marriage as near divorce with, according to Amanda, the distance from relatives as the only source of keeping her in the home.   

 In these videos, he speaks frequently and inappropriately about his own sex drive, Amanda's failure to satisfy it, and his causing her to have sex with him before going to dinner, lest he will not concentrate on her conversation.  This is to depersonalize and humiliate her.  It is done in 'word pictures' with theatrical choreographed movements added for affect.  This is why I called it "grooming."

In Statement Analysis, we also note grandiose praise as a signal of a bad relationship.  What made her great was letting him be "front and center."  She did not want to steal his spotlight.  

"and the nation, there were 6500..."  he knows the number of people who tuned in from around the world.  This is not something expected at this time.  He has now gone 'world wide', in response to the question of motive, as he turns back to 'success.'  

Please recall the question about motive has been moved from.  

h.   "We feel" is to avoid what he, himself feels, as husband.  This is an unexpected distancing language from a most personal and up close criminal act.  

i.  "Jesus" is used again and the success of his career propagated by her death. 

We note divinity in Statement Analysis as closely associated with deception.  "I swear to God" is the language of deception, even if the person's vow is truthful; it is the need to swear that is of concern.  Here, we do not find him using divinity as a means of verifying his words, but we do find it as a means of deflection and avoidance.  

The repetition indicating sensitivity is both advertising and deflection from the question.  

There is nothing within this statement that addresses the motive for her murder, nor the identity.  This is not missed by the Interviewer.  

There is nothing within this statement, or his earlier statements about catching the brutal murderer.  

There is nothing here, nor elsewhere, to show concern for his neighbors, himself, or his son, that a murderer may return.  

These are important expected elements that would come from someone of great faith, or someone without faith:  even a narcissist will be afraid for himself.  

The subject shows no concern, whatsoever, that a dangerous killer is out there.  


I: And it was such 


Here is cross talk 

DB: and, so , um , we’ve been

I: It was such an outpouring of…

DB: Go ahead George..sorry

Note the inclusion of "sorry" within the language.  
Note the 2nd inclusion of the Interviewer's first name 
Note he gives George permission to continue. 

I: I’m sorry, sorry, I apologize


DB: Yes.  

I:  "Do you have any idea why anyone would want to hurt Amanda?"

Recall that the police said he was "100%" not involved and that she was a robbery victim.  The Interviewer, by this question, shows a suspicion or doubt of this.  

Why might someone hurt her?

This should be easy to answer if the subject believes the police.  

My wife was killed during a robbery.  My wife was killed maybe protecting our baby.  My wife was killed because she surprised a robber...or anything along these lines.  

The police have already told him that there was a robbery earlier in the morning and that a video of a black male, short, with hoodie, exists who, they said, is the shooter.  Is this not the motive of why she was shot?




Question for analysis:  Does the subject believe the motive was robbery?

DB:   "There's not, Amanda did not have an enemy in the world.  Um, I, I can't, I cant imagine any reason why, that's why this has baffled us as much as anybody and so we are trusting the investigators who have been so good to us through this process um, trying to keep us up to speed on what they have and we trust, you know, that they are they are doing the best they can and have all the resources at their disposal right now  to catch who did this."

a.  The stuttering "I" of a non-stutterer (public speaker).  "I" is the most commonly used word by English speakers, with literally millions of usage.  Therefore, when one stutters on it, there is an increase in anxiety.  What caused this increase in anxiety?  It is about who would "do this to her" specifically. 

b.  "why":  motive is robbery.  If the motive was home invasion robbery, no answer is needed beyond this.  This shows that the subject does not believe this motive otherwise he might say, "I guess someone just wanted to steal from us" but does not.  He avoids giving any answer one week after the murder of his wife. 

This is not expected. 

We all would have long considered what would cause the murder of our wives, which is something very personal, affronting, and the language should reflect this.  That he is without imagination is not truthful.   Even one of his intellect, with a week to think of it, all day and all night, losing sleep, cannot even "imagine" why.  

This is to say that he does not want to say that she was killed as part of a robbery.  

People feel internal stress, not exclusively from conscience, when they lie outright.  Why does he avoid this simple sentence?

"It has baffled us" is to avoid that this "baffled me", the husband of the murdered wife and mother.  This is distancing language and is often found in the language of the guilty who wish to 'blend in' and 'hide' within a plurality of suspects. 

Pronouns are intuitive and powerful and do not lie.  Pronouns are exempt from subjectivity in language and are instinctive.  Pronouns are 100% reliable in guiding us.  

"baffle" is to say that it is a mystery, beyond his strong intellect's ability to even "imagine" what the motive may be.  

This is to say:  He does not want to tell the motive of his wife's murder.  

Next note:  Soft language towards the killer:  

"to catch who did this" is not to "catch my wife's killer" or anything similar. 

Note also that he does not use any harsh language on the killer.  

This avoidance is sometimes found in the language of the guilty, as well as extreme 'persuasive' condemnation of the killer.  (the former is more likely than the latter in guilty statements).  The extreme 'persuasive' signal of "attempt to persuade" is more often found in relationship language, as a signal. 

 Recall Scott Peterson's description of marriage as "glorious", while his dead wife and pre born child were  still not located at that time.  This is frequently seen on Facebook where public extremes are used, often signaling trouble at home. In murder cases, we sometimes find very soft, passive language, some including empathy, for the killer.  

The expected is to see and hear someone 'bite their tongue' but still use strong language:

"the killer"
"my wife's murderer"
"the animal who did this"
and so on.  

Objection:  This is his religious belief; to "love your enemy,"and it is in his language.  

Answer:  It is appropriate  that we view his statement in context of his background and work.  It helps establish his reference point and his norm.  His claim of context is Christianity.  

 Christ used harsh language, as did others, including "brute beasts", "vipers", and so on. He called upon forgiveness for ignorance, too, but he was not void, nor were the men He commissioned, of natural, human language.  

We note that the subject not only expresses no fear of the killer, he does not even identity him as the "killer", but only "who" instead.  This is to take a very soft approach to the one who killed his wife, of whom he said he had a very bad marriage with, and who said that pregnancy was a contributor to the negative relationship. 

Most men would fear the killer's return as he and his son are vulnerable and his home has experienced "invasion."

Home invasions are devastatingly personal, even when little is taken.  The occupants express feeling "violated" and unsafe.  When violence is added, it is much more intense, but with murder, there is no distancing in language expected; not even in denial.   

I:  "Investigators have also said that there is a code of silence that may have prevented people from coming forward even if they have information that might solve this crime.  What do you want to tell those people who might know something about this?

TV interviewers do not have the information needed, but do much of the talking for self promotion.  The question is what he wishes to say to anyone who has information that would lead to arrests:  

DB:  well, I mean, I, we would beg them to give any information that they  have.  Uh, we'd be extremely grateful for for that, you know, uh, it is really hard to sort through the emotions of what we are feeling about all this, absolutely we'd, you know, it, we we are confused, you know, we don't understand why, we, you know, um, we are angry we we;re not really sure what to do but I read Amanda's journal entry just a few days before as she journaled every day of her life just a few days before she was killed and she put something in there that just spoke volumes to us that we are deriving strength from she said we don't know what the future holds but we know Who holds the future and that's Jesus, and so we are drawing our strength from that and Jesus holds the future and we can't see it clearly now but she can see it clearly now as she is in heaven with Jesus and we will see her soon."

There is much here that is concerning: 

a.  Note the pronoun change of "I" to "we"
b.  Note the weakness in the verb, "would" rather than directly speaking to the people who could help solve the case.  
c. "we'd be extremely grateful for that", itself, warrants analysis:

"we" is not expected; making the assertion weak (1) 
Being "grateful" is made sensitive by "extremely",  (2)
"we'd" is contraction for we "would" which is conditional (3)
The word "that", rather than "this" is distancing language.  

Expected:  

I.  What do you say to those people who might know something about this?

Subject:  "Call the police.  Tell them.  They will keep it anonymous.  Tell them. Please!"

No equivocation nor distancing language.  "Would", by itself, is a weak assertion that is conditional.  This is not a conditional opportunity.  It may be conditional that one knows something, but the opportunity to speak, now, is not conditional.  It is expected that he would directly and firmly tell them to call.  Begging would also be a possibility. 

Note the continued 'sharing' of emotions:  
you know, uh, it is really hard to sort through the emotions of what we are feeling about all this,

Who is "we"?
What is "all this"?  The murder of his wife and child?  

This is a form of passive language that avoids telling us what he feels.  He is concealing information about his own emotions in the murder of his wife.  

Note the inability or refusal to speak for himself:

we don't understand why, we, you know, um, we are angry we we;re not really sure what to do

Note the stutter, again, on the pronoun "we" as increase in anxiety at this point of the topic.  Take this with the habit of speech, "you know" which shows an increase in the presence of the Interviewer at this question, and it brings us to sensitivity. 

I:  Thank you (cross talk) can you mention how you are holding up through all of us, hey hey there've been you know, when you look at these photos and see all this has there been any other problems in the neighborhood did you did you or any of your neighbors recognize uh, that person , its kind of hard to determine who that person might be, that person in the photo?

Police have said that this is the shooter.  

When someone refuses to speak for himself, there are two points in which the refusal becomes heightened; 

1. Thought
2.  Emotion

One should tell us what one thought.  In a personal domestic homicide, the subject should tell us what he thinks.  Even when a husband and wife are seated together, speaking for one another, for example, in a missing child case, biological innocent parents will say "I" and "my son" in their statements.  

Truthful people tell us what they thought and felt.  Yet it is in emotion that the subject should only tell us what he, himself felt, as emotion is the reaction to the known facts of what happened, and are personal. 

He is alone. 
His wife is not with him. 
He lost his own wife; this is the highest loss in a murder, with the child closely related.  

Even if he wished to speak to the thoughts of others (which is not expected), the emotions should be solely his own.  

They are not.  This is a red flag.  

DB   Yeah, Yeah, I  mean it was such an obscure photo its I mean its extremely difficult to say anyone recognized it I mean our fam, our neighborhood was so close and it was such a seemingly safe neighborhood that this devastated all the neighbors, you know we knew all the neighbors we had just lots of cook outs with them recently and uh, and so, you know, we're we're we're we're just as confused as everybody else...at this point. 

"Everybody else" did not have their wives and pre born children brutally murdered; he did.

The pronoun "we" is then stuttered upon four or five times (it is difficult to discern) regarding the topic of "confusion."  He does not say "I am just as confused" but "we", with the plural "we" being very sensitive to him. 

Pronouns are not generally stuttered upon unless there is a hesitation in the speed of transmission:

Remember:  the average person has 25,000 words.  Blackburn is above average in intelligence and likely has many more.  Pronouns are used since childhood, millions of times.  While speaking, his brain tells him what words, out of the 25,000 +, where to place each word, what tense to use, and so on, in order to communicate.  

This processing time is less than a microsecond in the brain. 

When there is a halt, or disruption in speed, the topic is very sensitive and is used in polygraphs to discern internal stress that this disruption causes.  

That he is a non-stutterer and a public speaker only highlights the stress or anxiety felt in this context.  

Sensitivity indicators have to do with the speed of transmission and not the 'sensitivity' of the overall topic.  The murder of one's own spouse is sensitive, yet the language flows freely and quickly and when a subject wishes to conceal information, or is upon a particularly anxiety producing word, he may stutter.  

"Sorry" is something that we listen for as it does enter the brain (and the subsequent language) of the guilty.  It is not an indicator of guilt by itself, but something we note and add to overall analysis. Casey Anthony said, "I'm sorry?" to the 911 operator, as if to say 'pardon me' or "What did you say?"

Being "sorry" has a way of creeping into the language of both the polite, and the guilty.  Therefore, without conclusion, we simply note its inclusion in the overall analysis.  

I:  "Your little boy Weston is just 15 months old he won't grow up with his mom.  What are you going to tell him about her?

This is an opportunity to talk about Amanda's character specifically as it related to motherhood.  He can tell us she was a "great mother" but it will be hollow without telling us what made her a "great mother":  

DB:  "Yeah, yep.  I think that thats probably one of the hardest things in this whole process  is knowing that he is not going to grow up with Amanda, because she was the perfect mama, every mom in the world could have learned from her,  I wish every wife in the world could have learned from her and I know that there is going to be some stories that we're going to tell Weston as he grows up but I do know one thing that through all of this Amanda's hope and um her prayer is that Weston grows up and sees Jesus in all this and falls in love with Jesus.  And that would be her hope through all of this and so as we're dialoging with him and trying to shepherd his heart as he grows up we're just going to continue to point to the fact that his mom loved Jesus and loved people and that's contagious and we just believe that that the Lord is going to do a great work in his life as well.  

a.  First note that the murder of his wife, a week old, is a "process." This is consistent with other distancing, formal language, as if he is a counselor well removed from the family.  

b.  She was "the perfect mama" 
c.  "Every mom in the world could have learned from her."
d.  "I wish every wife in the world could have learned from her."

Hyperbole noted, without content.  

Hyperbole is often consistent with bad relationships.  It shows a "need to persuade" rather than an honest report.  It is expected, however, when one dies, that all criticism cease and some elevation take place.  Here, he does not, however, tell us what made her great as a mother and while addressing this topic for his son, moves into hyperbole as a wife but again it is without a single word of content. 

This is to suggest that the subject was critical of Amanda as a mother and as a wife.  

This is something first noted in his originally released statement, and confirmed in his video appearances. 

The hyperbolic statements echo what we saw in Scott Peterson's statements, and were, like these, without content.  Even a short sentence about what made her great would suffice, including "a loving mother" an "attentive mother" or one who "gave her time to Weston", and so on. 

Nothing. 

It is void of content and 'empty hyperbolic praise' instead.  

Also we see subtle distancing language, including the word "with" when between people, as distancing (which may be due to death), yet in the same answer as the lack of content.  This distancing is affirmed with:

"I know that there is going to be some stories that we're going to tell Weston as he grows up" which is then met by "but":

a.  "I known" is turned to "we" that will be telling the stories.  This is to distance himself from saying "I will tell Weston", which, as father, is expected.  This distancing language is consistent throughout his statement. 

b.  "but"

The word "but" refutes or minimizes that which preceded it by comparison.  What follows is 'greater' when compared to the "stories" about "Amanda" (not his mother, nor his "mama") "they" (plural) will tell Weston:

"Jesus"

This brings back the focus of the purpose of the "celebration" and the advertising of the church, as to say 'this is so powerful that you must come and be a part of it' and has been his theme from the first release. 

The constant repetition of the Name of "Jesus" is used excessively and it comes up when he speaks of Amanda. It is to show that this appearance on Good Morning America is another opportunity for his business, the business he told his audience shortly after the murder, that he would be staying with.  



I:  "Thank you very much, Pastor"

DB:  "Thank you very much, George."  

Analysis Conclusion:

Davey Blackburn was not asked by George Stephonapholis if he was involved in his wife's murder, therefore, we have no opportunity to analyze his denial.  

Amanda Blackburn was shot in the head during a robbery while her husband, Davey Blackburn, was at the gym.   

In his statements and in this interview, he shows no concern about a murderer running lose, nor any personal desire for the murderer to be caught.  

He distances himself from the victim, consistently throughout.  

His initial statement showed a narcissistic like tendency to, at the time of his wife's murder, to be concerned with his "company", or "business" (church), including that he would still be the head of it.  This is not expected to be heard in a statement just after the murder of one's wife and unborn child. 

Next, he used it as an advertising opportunity and it worked:  2,000 were in attendance, and 4,000 more tuned in online.  This, too, is in his language.  

His videos are alarming.  In them, including one with the victim, he talked about how bad their marriage was, how he went to the gym, how he had life insurance, and how her first pregnancy was related to the bad marriage. 

Amanda Blackburn was murdered while being 3 months pregnant, while her husband was at the gym.  

He also speaks in the videos about his sex drive.  This is combined with theatrics while dressed in young, hip and tight fitting clothing as a "minister" who has tailored his message to "resonate" with "young people."

He does not limit his sexual speaking to Scripture but moves to himself, often, as the example, using words that create 'pictures' in the minds of teenaged listeners in the audience.  As he inputs himself into the sexual discussion he tells his audience about his sex drive and his wife's failure to meet it.  He goes into inappropriate personal detail which is humiliating and depersonalizing to Amanda, including the bizarre "we must have sex before our dinner date" lest he be incapable of "concentrating" on Amanda's conversation.  The videos tell us something is very wrong here.

In cases I have worked, or assisted others, each time a professional was using his own self as sexual example, it ended up  being "grooming" with loss of job, license or an arrest.  It is inappropriate.    

In the videos, he is "front and center", consistent with narcissism, puts on a 'show' and when he does appear with Amanda, he over-talks her, interrupts her, and 'corrects' her.  He even ridicules her fidelity at one point.  He is, in short, competing with her for the attention of the audience and camera.  This is the one area that in this interview, he praises her with content:  she did not want the spotlight.  This is good for him and the only tangible praise he offers her.  

He mentions not only life insurance, but the gym, which he connects with "sex" and pays a company $10 a month to monitor his online viewing history.  

His statements are all about himself, and when not about sex, he is about his 'ministry', or, for the sake of this analysis, his 'company' that he, alone, must cause to grow to be as successful as the large one that sent him out, with 2 years salary and $100,000 in cash, to grow. 

While his wife had just died a violent death, he included in his first statement, the priority within him:  he is not leaving his company.  

When he answers the questions for the television audience in this interview, he conceals his own thoughts and his own emotions by only ascribing what "we" think and what "we" say.  

He shows that he does not agree with the police about the motive.  Police said "robbery" but he says that "we" are not able to even "imagine" what the motive was. 

Davey Blackburn does not want to talk about the motive for the murder.  

The police made it clear stating he was "100% not involved, and that "this is the killer" on the video, and that it was a robbery.  What is it about robbery that Blackburn does not wish to talk about?  What is it about the police conclusion that leads Blackburn to be "baffled" and incapable of "imagining" why this happened?

He speaks of the killer in terms void of any anger, resentment or emotion.  Even in the most restrained religious language, there is an expectation of not only fear, for himself and his son, but anger. 

There is none.  

The hyperbolic language suggests a relationship as bad as both he and Amanda stated that it was.  In statement analysis, the exaggeration of praise is a signal of a poor relationship as it has a need to persuade which reveals weakness.  

Davey Blackburn is concealing his thoughts about the murder. 

Davey Blackburn is concealing his emotions about the murder. 

             Davey Blackburn is not afraid of the killer. 

He does not address this fear, for himself, his son, and for the community at large.  His concern is not for himself, his son, or the community, but for the growth of his 'company.'  

This leads us to ask:  

What would cause him to not fear the killer?

If a thief had broken into my home and shot my wife in the head, killing her and my unborn child, it would be terrorizing for me, my children, and my neighbors.  It would be a priority before I could even begin to process what has happened, what I have lost, and what my children have lost.  

I would not have a need to tell the public that my career is going forward.  The world would 'stop' and her death would not be used for publicity.  

I would be in fear for my life and the lives of those around me unless I had knowledge that the killer would not target me and my family.  Even then, could I trust this knowledge?  

Davey Blackburn wants to "move on" from the murder of his wife. This is his theme a week after her murder.   This is not expected but it is consistent with one headed for divorce and it is consistent from his wording on how bad his marriage was.  

Davey Blackburn does not hold Amanda in high regard as a mother.  This was first signaled in his initial statement, and is confirmed here by hyperbolic empty praise. 

Davey Blackburn does not show a high opinion of Amanda as his wife, confirming the things both he and Amanda spoke about regarding their relationship.  

Davey Blackburn uses language that distances himself from the closest personal murder possible:  his own wife by "running away from commitment" with the pronoun "we" instead of the pronoun "I" in his statement.  

The pronoun "I" is the most powerful in the English language and is used millions of times by us.  It is not difficult to use.  

In this "up close" and "personal" murder, he runs away from commitment by using the plural pronoun instinctively.  This is more consistent with guilt, as even parents of young children are familiar with, than with innocence.  

Some of this may be explained by the fact that while being in a very bad marriage, his wife has died, sparing him the pain of divorce, which would have cost him his company.  He can now, unfettered by both her and the pregnancy, continue to grow his company, as he is under heavy pressure to be successful in numerical and financial growth.  

The distancing language and hyperbolic praise is consistent with a bad relationship, but this does not explain why Davey Blackburn has no fear of the killer.  

Perhaps police have given him reassurance that he is unable to share with the public, of which this question is now answered and the conclusion of distancing language from a bad marriage is the conclusion of the analysis.  This is difficult to accept, right now, because he has given indication that police are not communicating much with him other than what the public knows.  

There is not a single word of concern that his young child may have been exposed to the violence, which, at his age, still may have impact, nor does he express fear for his son's life.  

If Blackburn is not guilty in association with his wife's murder, he is doing a good job of impersonating someone who is and is someone who is no longer under the burden of a bad marriage so he can pursue his career.  His words reveal that in the midst of a murdered wife, his work is far more important.  In another interview, he likens Amanda's death to his 'company' where her death has brought people out to his church.  He receives the praise for his 'remarkable' lack of affect and his 'celebration' of her death.  

In the final question about Amanda, he again praised her for not taking the spotlight.  He said "she loves people" but continued to avoid saying, "she loved me."  In this interview, he stayed remarkably close to 'script', repeating the same things to the local news that he did to national.  

Davey Blackburn did not shoot Amanda Blackburn, but does he know who did?  Is he connected, in any way, to the shooter, due to a bad marriage, the pregnancy, and a life insurance policy?

Or, did a man passionate and driven about his job,  who had  a bad marriage, who would have lost his job in a divorce, be granted his 'divorce' by a robber who decided to shoot his victim in the head?

Coincidence?

It is possible.  

411 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 411 of 411
Jamie said...

Wonder if Davey Blackburn reads your great blog? He just put out a new statement begging for anyone 'withholding' information to come forward and also talking about his surviving son growing up without his mother. He also said he feels very alone. He makes it much more personal using the pronoun 'I' and doesn't hide behind religion. Seems to be touching on things you said you'd expect that he didn't do in his other statements. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

Why is it still being reported that Amanda had been sexually assaulted? Yesterday Lt Riddle IMPD spokesperson denied the previous report that they had determined she was sexually assaulted. He said they have DNA evidence in this case, and have not confirmed and are unable to say if she has been sexually ABUSED. The term being changed to sexual abuse says they are looking at a whole different scenario surrounding their physical findings. This is so key, why is it not being pointed out?

Mather said...

Good point. Who responds properly to ones wife and Childs murder?

Brooke Kaelin said...

Just for comparison, here is the statement of the father who lost his little daughter in Kentucky:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/20/arrest-made-in-death-girl-7-who-disappeared-during-football-game/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

"Please justice, take over for my baby, I love her so much," Brian Doolin said. "This animal should not be walking and breathing... I love yalls babies too, I wish this evil could be taking off this planet."

"Thank you friends and family,” he said. “We've never been this empty. I'd give anything to hold my baby girl just one more time... I love her with all my heart... please continue to pray for my family... I would of gladly traded places with my baby girl.. I don't know why anyone would do this to a baby or anyone for that matter!"

This is also a man who lost his loved one in a horrible way. I compared this to DB's statement, where there is no call for justice, no emotion at all. The difference in the language is night and day.

BPatMan said...

I guess that its now pretty clear that this "Statement Analysis" guy is just another crackpot who wants people to think he is somebody important.

Anonymous said...

I just read how an Upstate pastor is calling for an apology for Davey Blackburn since the suspects have been arrested. While Davey could very well be innocent, this is just the tip of the iceberg, just because they arrested the suspects does not mean Davey had nothing to do with it, we all knew he was not the shooter, that does not mean he was not involved.

I am not saying he is involved, all I am saying is you all still do not know the entire truth to automatically state Davey Blackburn deserves an apology since the suspects arrest. It is sad but true murder for hire is not old news sadly in this world, and yes Davey's behavior has been very odd throughout this entire ordeal…unlocked door in a neighborhood break ins had been occurring. I know my husband always locks the door when he leaves and my daughter and I are home. The others robberies could have been staged to make it look random, this is not the police departments first rodeo, do not think they are not considering this could have been a murder for hire.

They cleared Davey 100% as the shooter that’s it! I hope he is innocent, all I am saying is don’t be so quick to let him off the hook yet, he has been acting very strange, the fact that he can talk about it without so much as a quiver in his voice or tear in his eye less than a week after the murder is very odd, faith or no faith. The marriage went bad after the first pregnancy, she was 12 weeks pregnant, it is just all way too convenient it really is! I hope I am wrong though! Also this story is why I have always been a freak about keeping doors and windows locked at ALL times, and have a 9 mm in a gun safe on my night stand.

Louise K said...

Yeah here's what I Statement Analysed -

Me, me, me, me, me

When he says "I feel peace" - I bet you do DB - so far everything is unwinding as planned

Oh except

NO ONE BELIEVES YOU

there's that part...!!!

Louise K said...

Regarding the Sexual Assault - I believe this came straight from Davey.

It is Davey himself who bought Sexual Assault into the equation

Because Amanda was found with her underwear beside her

However no foreign DNA was found on her body (there would be charges by now) so we can all guess/assume/postulate that the removal of the underwear was part of the STAGING.

Staging an execution into another random crime.

Louise K said...

The inequality of the sexes bothers the Hell out of me.

No women visible holding microphones

Women relegated to Helpmates and Breeders

Amanda and Davey believed she was pregnant with a GIRL

The Obituary implies the fetus was indeed a girl (she also would've been autopsied)

So now Davey has an All Male Household

...by design....?

Anonymous said...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/davey-blackburn-indiana-god-allowed-wifes-murder-church-could-live-151872/

"I had a thought this morning in the shower. And felt like the Lord spoke to my heart and said: 'Davey, I want my church, I want my bride to come alive. And if I had asked you, Davey, before this if you were willing to give up your bride so that my bride can come alive, what would you have said?'" he noted with an uneasy chuckle.

"Of course, like anybody else I said 'absolutely not. There is no way.' I'm good with being married and having two little kids, pastoring a church of 120 for the rest of my life. I am good with comfort. And the Lord said, 'That's why I didn't ask you the question beforehand.' Because sometimes when you say, I surrender all, you mean I surrender some. So you are put in a situation where you have to surrender all," he continued.

Anonymous said...

Has any one noticed the fact that in the picture of Amanda holding the baby that the baby is wearing a girl's bow and has on pink PJ's? I had to Google to see that it was a boy as I was not paying too much attention at the time it was showing. I then viewed the images on Google and find that the baby is constantly wearing male type hats. Flap like hunters hat, newsboy type cap. And he is wearing them in all types of weather. I find this interesting. Also, who took all of the pictures of the couple with and without the baby. So many photos. Not like the husband took one and then the wife. Both are in ALL pictures, with and without the baby. I suggest finding the person who took the pictures and why and when so many. Just an observation, but telling.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 411 of 411   Newer› Newest»